What is experience?

Huguette . wrote:
A process is a series of actions or steps that accomplish a specific end, isn’t it more or less?

Juan E wrote:I would define a process as "a series of actions or steps with a goal in mind that can or can not be accomplished" ... Would you agree?

I don’t agree, Juan. Sorry. You’re clearly talking about a man-made process. There are also natural processes, so what you say doesn’t always apply. A process itself has no “goal”. It’s just a process. Whether a process is natural or man-made, it is not nullified by an interruption, a failure or a breakdown. For example, I might not be able to finish making the cheese, or something might go wrong in the process, but the process itself can still be followed again.

Huguette . wrote:
“Thought” refers to the process of thinking“ ... Thought” is also the end result of the process

Juan E wrote:I understand what you mean with (psychological) thought being a process as well as an end result, but i wouldn't say that psychological thought is an end result, for even a conclusion doesn't end the thought process ... So as i see it, psychological thought is an on-going process with a goal in mind that is never accomplished, therefore in constant movement, that apparently ends at the moment of physical death ... What do you think?

Thought - whether it is psychological or not - is a process involving electrical currents, movements of neurons and chemicals, across synapses, and so on. As I’ve often said, I don’t know exactly how it works, I’m not a scientist, but I do believe there’s material movement - a process - involved in thought. I see process not as a goal but as a formal description, a kind of flowchart, of the sequence of steps or actions that occurs. Someone (or “Nature” or God?!) might perhaps have a goal and create a process to accomplish it. But the process itself - natural or man-made - cannot have a goal, can it?

Processes abound all around and within us. The mind - thought - can have the specific goal (thought, idea, concept) to develop a certain process but that movement of thought, that idea, is governed by a material process, as I see it. The thought process does not die with the physical death of the individual brain, nor with the accomplishment of the specific goal. This doesn't mean that a process is like a runaway train that never stops. If I follow the process for making a cake, that doesn't mean that I'm stuck endlessly making cakes without stop until I die. The process has a beginning, a middle and an end.

Huguette . wrote:
isn't the end result of a process also part of the process?

Juan E wrote:May i ask something here: is there any actual end result of a process? ... Let's take a Rose for example, is the rose the end result of a process or it is only the thinker that thinks of it as the end result of a process? ... As i see it there's never an 'end result' but a continuous process, even thought is never an ending result ... But for some reason, thought is always thinking of things (and of itself) as being an ending result, which to me is a mistake in, or if you want a defect of the 'machinery', which is the cause for a lot of wrong perceptions and therefore of a lot of conflicts.

Why do you say that “thought is always thinking of things (and of itself) as being an ending result”? Does it? I don’t see it that way. But whatever it is that thought does to create conflict, does it have to be that way? Can thought see its own process and see the flaw in the content that it puts together? That is, can thought see the beauty in the thought process and the error in the thought?

Are you denying that there are naturally-occurring processes which can be observed in organic life and in inorganic matter, as well as man-made processes devised by thought? Process in itself is not a problem. To me, there’s beauty and elegance in processes as well. And life is more than processes. The sacred, the mysterious, the infinite, the eternal, is not a process. But thought is a process and thought is misunderstood BY thought and is the source of much suffering because of this misunderstanding, isn't it? From its misunderstanding, thought creates a barrier between the "self-centre" and eternal life, doesn’t it? Does it have to be that way? So IS thought an obstacle to living fully, without conflict? If so, isn’t it important to understand the whole process?

Huguette . wrote:
Identification IS thought, thought is self, self is thought, thought is identification, thought is experience, experience is thought - and round and round.

Juan E wrote:This is it ... something which is 'round and round' cannot have an end result, other than an illusory or imagined 'end result' that is usually taken as real by thought (with all the conflicts and contradictions that this implies for thought itself).

Again, are you saying that there is no such thing as a naturally-occurring thought process? Isn’t petroleum formed as a result of a naturally-occurring process? Isn’t every form of life part of a natural process? And are you denying that there is a naturally-occurring thought process which produces - puts together - thoughts? “Round and round” refers to the thoughts put together by the process, not to the process itself. It is the content of the round-and-round thoughts which cause the process to repeat unnecessarily, isn't it?

Yes, your explanation is very clear, and thanks for taking the time. But I am still reflecting on the business of thought requiring food - food being a form of energy. Of course thought/thinking DOES require energy, an energy input, like all the processes of the body. There is no question of that. But apart from this physical source of energy, is there anything else feeding thought, in the sense of "keeping it going"?

Juan E wrote:So as i see it, psychological thought is an on-going process with a goal in mind that is never accomplished, therefore in constant movement, that apparently ends at the moment of physical death ... What do you think?

If one accepts the existence of the The Stream of human consciousness then the movement of thought DOESN'T end at the moment of death, does it? It carries on in the stream - which is where it has always been anyway.

Clive Elwell wrote:But apart from this physical source of energy, is there anything else feeding thought, in the sense of "keeping it going"?

Fear, desire, attachment to ideas and images, ignorance? Other than that .... nothing?!

Isn't it misleading though to talk about energy as a factor feeding thought? Doesn't it imply that to end thought, then end energy - without killing the organism? Which is impossible. The ending of energy in the human or any other organism is the death of that organism, isn't it?

I feel there is no friendly looking together in talking things over with you. You feel I'm trying to convince you, and I feel the same. Sorry, I don't mean to hurt your feelings but I feel I owe it to you to let you know that I won't be responding to your latest posts above.

Huguette . wrote:Isn't it misleading though to talk about energy as a factor feeding thought? Doesn't it imply that to end thought, then end energy -

Actually I was not thinking in terms of "ending energy". In fact I see that anything that I do, or plan to do, only leads to more confusion.

I was merely investigating, 'trying', if that is the word, to understand the whole process whereby thought continues. Without trying to interfer in the process. Understanding does not 'mislead', does it? This understanding, if it happens, is the significant factor, is it not? It the understanding that acts, not me, not thought - although thought may play a part.

Clive Elwell wrote:Actually I was not thinking in terms of "ending energy".

No, I didn’t think that you were thinking in terms of ending energy. That’s why I felt it was misleading to suggest a connection between “food for thought” and energy. Not important though.

Clive Elwell wrote:I was merely investigating, 'trying', if that is the word, to understand the whole process whereby thought continues. Without trying to interfer in the process. Understanding does not 'mislead', does it? This understanding, if it happens, is the significant factor, is it not? It the understanding that acts, not me, not thought - although thought may play a part.

I too see it that way - that understanding acts and that thought can, as you say, play a part in such action. And vigilant observation reveals any attempt by thought to turn understanding into conclusion and “act” on its conclusion. Is this so?

But apart from this physical source of energy, is there anything else feeding thought, in the sense of "keeping it going"?

Fear, desire, attachment to ideas and images, ignorance? Other than that .... nothing?!

But those are all a product of thought...movements in thought! Perhaps thought has its own momentum. As K said, 'You see a beautiful sunset which beings a feeling of joy. Then thought comes in and wants it repeated...continued.'(paraphrasing) So it's inattention that allows thought to continue? Lack of self-knowledge...lack of awareness?

You’re right, those are all a product of thought, thought that is fragmented into self and non-self. What keeps thought fragmenting in this way? What keeps “self” going is the question, isn’t it? As we all have seen in talking it over deeply many times I think, functional thought is not problematic. Functional thought arises, serves its purpose, and subsides. There’s no momentum in functional thought, is there, and no fear attached to it.

Is what maintains self the subtle expectation, desire or ideal that if I understand the fragmentation of thought, there “should be” be an instant ending to suffering? Is it that we still “mind what happens”? Does this subtle expectation (if it is so) maintain the circus of self going? Can I stay with suffering, face suffering, without resisting it? Isn’t that in fact dying as K talked about it? Obviously, when I'm on by death bed, I can’t say to death, “no wait, I need more time to achieve, to fix, to put my house in order, to find peace, to accomplish” (something to that effect). Out of this "renunciation" of all expectation, desire or ideal, doesn’t compassion for humanity - which is suffering, which is “me” - doesn't compassion flower?

Huguette . wrote:Is what maintains self the subtle expectation, desire or ideal that if I understand the fragmentation of thought, there “should be” be an instant ending to suffering? Is it that we still “mind what happens”? Does this subtle expectation (if it is so) maintain the circus of self going?

I don't know Huguette. I've never considered that aspect of 'me' before. We seek a permanent end to suffering, is that what you're saying? There's an expectation that I should be free of suffering. I suspect it's also related to thought's capacity to create time...,or the illusion of time. And related to that is the creation of the ideal. I will become 'better'...or happier...or non-violent...in some future time. Without time, there is only 'what is' now. But we are caught up in time....experience. Letting that go would be a kind of death....dying to the known.

Huguette . wrote:Can I stay with suffering, face suffering, without resisting it? Isn’t that in fact dying as K talked about it?

As long as I know something about it, I will resist it as something separate from me. Perhaps the 'dying' you're talking of is the ending of all knowledge(psychological) and expectation....experience. I don't know. I need to look further into what you've written. Hopefully others will join the discussion.

Huguette . wrote:I too see it that way - that understanding acts and that thought can, as you say, play a part in such action. And vigilant observation reveals any attempt by thought to turn understanding into conclusion and “act” on its conclusion. Is this so?

Yes. Observation is the only way to cover all the ways and tricks of the mind. And this turning of observation into conclusion, (that is, to return to the original topic, the creation of experience and accumulation of knowledge) is the great handicap to understanding, which can only be moment to moment. This accumulation means we judge the present through the eyes of the past.

I have just realised that by using the phrase "food for thought" I may have caused confusion. I remembered that the phrase has a specific meaning, that of 'something giving rise to reflection', something to think about. I did not mean that at all. I was asking is there a factor (perhaps external) that gives thinking the great momentum it has, that keeps carrying it forward.

Please note that I am not claiming that it IS external!

Is it the brain seeking security, hoping to find a pseudo security in some creation of thought? But if that is so, why has it not seen through this illusion after all these years?

I have just realised that by using the phrase "food for thought" I may have caused confusion. I remembered that the phrase has a specific meaning, that of 'something giving rise to reflection', something to think about. I did not mean that at all. I was asking is there a factor (perhaps external) that gives thinking the great momentum it has, that keeps carrying it forward.

Please note that I am not claiming that it IS external!

Is it the brain seeking security, hoping to find a pseudo security in some creation of thought? But if that is so, why has it not seen through this illusion after all these years?

Clive Elwell wrote:There are two senses of the concept of must, aren't there?

If my car is to work, there must be petrol in the tank.

Maybe in the sense that in order to understand oneself, one must be free of belief, opinions, conclusions? But we are not. If one accepts his 'must', that just becomes a belief. It would be similar to stating that all attachments must go. Well, my attachment to smoking may be a fact, right? I can't simply make it go away. The most I can do is to observe it as it is. I do see the distinction you're making, however....valid point, Clive.

I may not be free of my opinions, beliefs, conclusions, in that I think "I am right" and I therefore give them authority, or I want to impose conformity to them or convince others of their rightness. But “I” do KNOW what the opinions etc. are that I hold, that I’m willing (or not) to fight for physically or verbally. Or IS the imposition by force or legislation ever justified? DOES force and coercion ultimately solve our problems and bring peace?

If I know my own opinions but also understand that opinions, conclusions and beliefs do not represent truth, that they do not solve humanity’s problems, that they cause division and conflict, doesn’t that understanding “defuse” my opinions, take the wind out of their sails? That understanding is not belief, is it?

I cannot end my compulsion to smoke but I can understand that smoking is unhealthy even though I can’t stop. Can’t I honestly say that to be healthy I must stop smoking? That "must", that understanding, doesn't change even though I realize that "I" am powerless to stop.

Huguette . wrote:But “I” do KNOW what the opinions etc. are that I hold, that I’m willing (or not) to fight for physically or verbally.

There's also a vast(?) storehouse of unexamined unconscious ideals, beliefs, conclusions, I think.

Huguette . wrote:If I know my own opinions but also understand that opinions, conclusions and beliefs do not represent truth, that they do not solve humanity’s problems, that they cause division and conflict, doesn’t that understanding “defuse” my opinions, take the wind out of their sails?

Somewhat, yes. But deep unconscious ideals and beliefs like being 'good' or being a 'sinner'...the importance of 'making an effort' to achieve...of having goals...purpose....values....and the beliefs I got as a child in church or at home from religious parents, may remain. Being a hard worker...a good provider...a success...being brave, strong, courageous....being admired by the community....societal values... may not be so easily shaken.

Huguette . wrote:I cannot end my compulsion to smoke but I can understand that smoking is unhealthy even though I can’t stop. Can’t I honestly say that to be healthy I must stop smoking?

Yes, the damage from smoking can be measured physically...scientifically proven. The damage from ideals and beliefs cannot. It must be seen for ourselves....IN oneself.

If one accepts his 'must', that just becomes a belief. It would be similar to stating that all attachments must go.

In the sense that we're talking of "freedom from the known", all attachments must cease. The 'me' must go.

It's only a belief...or a logical conclusion....unless it's seen for/in oneself, however. It's not a true understanding unless we see it for ourself. So, barring that 'seeing', the 'must' may simply be a logical conclusion.

I will drop the phrase “food for thought” completely. Instead, I am asking myself this question:

The self continually fails to deliver what it promises, or tries to deliver, doesn’t it? It forever seeks pleasure, but any pleasure it finds lasts for a short while only, and always seems to contain its own opposite, the pain of frustration, loss, attachment, disappointment. The self seeks a lasting satisfaction, but fails to find it. It seeks a life of peace among the conflict, but can never attain lasting peace, harmony.

The self apparently can never come across the security it desires. Always new problems arise, new threats, new anxieties, fears. I am sure we all recognise this. But it never gives up trying!

Why?

Normally, if we are trying to do something, and we see the method we are using to achieve our aims doesn’t work, then we give up that method. It’s just common sense. But not the self. It’s keeps trying and trying to find contentment, success, stability. But it seems it has never succeeded, never succeeded to go beyond its own suffering. It’s keeps trying, in the same old path. Why does it never learn, why does it never just give up?

Clive Elwell wrote:The self apparently can never come across the security it desires. Always new problems arise, new threats, new anxieties, fears. I am sure we all recognise this. But it never gives up trying!

Why?

Pleasure? I've got my guitar and my rock band. I may not find the ultimate, but there's that gorgeous young lady at my job that I'm dying to get a dinner date with....some good food, wine, conversation, and who know what....? As long as pleasure seems within reach, 'I'll' go that road.

Tom Paine wrote:Pleasure? I've got my guitar and my rock band. I may not find the ultimate, but there's that gorgeous young lady at my job that I'm dying to get a dinner date with....some good food, wine, conversation, and who know what....? As long as pleasure seems within reach, 'I'll' go that road.

But surely there comes a time when the limitations of the search for pleasure become apparent?

Clive Elwell wrote:But surely there comes a time when the limitations of the search for pleasure become apparent?

Not for most of us. My grandmother lived for pleasure, as far as I could tell, for all her 92 years....looking forward to a nice dinner...some tasty chocolate cake for desert....a trip to the shopping mall to buy a nice dress....a trip to the hair salon....TV...occassional book. She loved the beauty of the natural world out in Southern California as well. But I think she had some terrible loneliness too, late in life when she could no longer drive. Some of the Rolling Stones rock band are still at it...they're in their early seventies, and they're still trying to play the rock star. Of course they've got more money than God, so the search for pleasure can be seemingly endless. I want to add, that I recall speaking with my grandmother when she was well up in her 80's, and she told me she felt like she had lived a very full...good...life.

Before i start a dialogue on the topic of this thread i would like to make a disclaimer since i am a newcomer and we don't know each other: i approach a dialogue rather simply which happens to also be in sync with what K suggested throughout his life and that is, i go slowly, step by step, humbly, and DO NOT give or receive any handouts. By handouts I mean providing or receiving any ready answers. My effort is to have an interactive dialogue in which the participants are meeting each other in clean motives, equal effort and not where one is doing all the work and another has their legs stretched out as a passive listener wanting to be spoon fed. Also i won't respond to declarative statements unless it includes a question. Does this seem fair and acceptable to you? if so we can proceed and if at any time my approach creates a problem let me know and i will stop contributing.

If we are in agreement then i will start by saying: In regards to your original post (without reading all the responses of others) and since you postulate that "experience" requires a "recognition"...... would it be acceptable to distinguish between experience and experiencing? For an experiencing without an experience? That way the experiencing is ever new?

If I know my own opinions but also understand that opinions, conclusions and beliefs do not represent truth, that they do not solve humanity’s problems, that they cause division and conflict, doesn’t that understanding “defuse” my opinions, take the wind out of their sails?

Tom Paine wrote:

Somewhat, yes. But deep unconscious ideals and beliefs like being 'good' or being a 'sinner'...the importance of 'making an effort' to achieve...of having goals...purpose....values....and the beliefs I got as a child in church or at home from religious parents, may remain. Being a hard worker...a good provider...a success...being brave, strong, courageous....being admired by the community....societal values... may not be so easily shaken.

Tom, I do see that the conscious mind has no authority or control over the unconscious mind. The beliefs, ideals, etc., which were inculcated in the child by parents and educators are not eradicated by "new" beliefs the adult adopts, are they? The old beliefs remain active in the depths of consciousness; and superficial consciousness is unaware of them directly, but it is aware of the intimations. Aren’t fear, anger, depression, anxiety, the intimations arising from depths of consciousness, from the contradictions between conscious and unconscious? The mind doesn't like or want to face the intimations, but it is aware of them, isn't it?

So there's contradiction and conflict within consciousness - between unconscious and conscious beliefs, opinions, ideals, conclusions and so on. That’s how it seems to me. Is that what you’re also saying?

We're looking into what keeps the self going. Is it contradiction, this division and battle between conscious and unconscious? Consciously I think that I’m quite capable and wonderful but unconsciously I think that I’m incompetent and weak (as an example).

If the mind sees the falseness of all belief, opinion, etc. - conscious and unconscious - and it sees that effort cannot overcome the contradictions, divisions, fear, and so on, that perception is very significant, isn’t it? So there’s nothing to "do" but observe, learn - and not make this into a new conclusion or belief. Or is this all wrong?

Tom Paine wrote:My grandmother lived for pleasure, as far as I could tell, for all her 92 years....looking forward to a nice dinner...some tasty chocolate cake for desert....a trip to the shopping mall to buy a nice dress....a trip to the hair salon....TV...occassional book. She loved the beauty of the natural world out in Southern California as well. But I think she had some terrible loneliness too, late in life when she could no longer drive. Some of the Rolling Stones rock band are still at it...they're in their early seventies, and they're still trying to play the rock star. Of course they've got more money than God, so the search for pleasure can be seemingly endless. I want to add, that I recall speaking with my grandmother when she was well up in her 80's, and she told me she felt like she had lived a very full...good...life.

There’s nothing wrong with pleasures such as these, is there? There’s no obligation or reason to deny oneself pleasure, or condemn oneself for enjoying pleasure. It doesn’t sound like your grandmother was obsessed with pursuing pleasure or that she was trying to escape pain. Looking forward to a nice dinner is not divisive or rooted in fear, is it? Sometimes there is pleasure, sometimes sadness, sometimes joy, sometimes sorrow and loneliness - both sides of the coin.

Isn’t it when one doggedly pursues pleasure and tries to escape the flip side of the coin that conflict ensues?